Maples v. Burnside

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Decided July 15, 1845

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · decided 1845-07-15

Demurrer to replication. The declaration was in assumpsit. Plea, Actio non, because, &c., the defendant, on, &c., at, &c., he, the said defendant, (then and there residing, &c.,) “ was owing debts to a large amount, which debts he was then and there utterly unable to meet, pay, or discharge, and which said debts had not, nor had any of them or any part thereof been created by or in consequence of any defalcation of a public officer, or as executor, administrator, guardian or…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1849

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1845-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1’ The plea is fatally defective. There is a class of debts upon which a bankrupt’s discharge does not operate, and a plea of such discharge must shew that the plaintiff’s debt does not belong to that class. The two averments referred to by the defendant’s counsel do not, even argumentatively, make this out. It is not averred that all the defendant’s debts were such as did not arise in consequence of a defalcation by a public officer, «fee., but only that he owed debts which were not so created ; and at the conclusion he only says that the plaintiff’s debt, if it existed, was owing prior to the time of presenting his petition, not that it was one of those mentioned at the commencement of the plea.

¶2The plea being bad it is unnecessary to express an opinion upon the replication.(a)

¶3Judgment for the plaintiff.

¶4 See Brereton v. Hull, (ante, 75.)